Delhi High Court - Orders
Abc College Of Education & Anr vs Sh Santosh Kumar Sarangi Chairperson ... on 27 January, 2022
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~41(1)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 94/2022 & CM APPL. 4645/2022
ABC COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SH SANTOSH KUMAR SARANGI CHAIRPERSON NATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Manek
Singh, Mr. Pranav Gupta and Mr.
Aman Sahani, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 27.01.2022 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. CM APPL. 4644/2022 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed-off.
CONT.CAS(C) 94/2022
3. There is repeated non-compliance by the NCTE of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and this court. It is a matter of record in numerous contempt petitions pending before this court against the NCTE. This court has recorded its concern in case after case, expecting the respondents to put their house in order. Hardly, any improvement has been noticed in the last one year. The concern of the writ court too is noticed in its order dated 05.08.2021 passed in a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49 batch of matters including W.P.(C) 5820/2021. It inter-alia reads as under:
"...
10. As far as the issue of violation of the orders of this Court is concerned, Mr. Kumar has emphasised that the policy decision dated 25.01.2021 was taken much after the lapse of the time granted by the orders of this Court. That is a matter for consideration in the contempt petitions, which are pending before a Coordinate Bench. The factors which weigh with the Court while deciding whether or not to issue a writ of mandamus are different from those upon which contempt proceedings are adjudicated. The observations made in this order are therefore not intended to prejudice the rights and contentions of the parties in the adjudication of the contempt petitions.
11. Whatever decision the NCTE wishes to take should be taken in time, so that the processing of the petitioners' applications for the academic session 2022-23 can be concluded. If necessary, the NCTE will process the petitioners' applications in anticipation of the decision and subject to the petitioners' compliance with any changes in the regulatory regime. It is made clear that it is for the NCTE to take a call on the question as to whether the institutions are to be granted permission or not. The present directions are for processing of the applications in terms of the applicable regulatory regime to enable the institutions to commence the ITEP in the academic session 2022-23, if found compliant.
12. As applications for 3000 institutions were returned by virtue of the policy decision dated 25.01.2021, the NCTE will implement the aforesaid directions in respect of all those institutions, rather than compelling each one of them to approach the Court. The NCTE will notify the institutions concerned, to whom the policy decision dated 25.01.2021 was made applicable, of the contents of this order. ..."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49
4. The respondents had sought extension of time to comply with the aforesaid court's directions. The application was rejected on 10.12.2021 in W.P.(C) 6621/2021, with the following observations:
"...
7. Mr. Shivam Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the NCTE, submits that the Court, by the judgment dated 05.08.2021, did not interfere with the policy decision of the NCTE but only imposed a time frame for decision making. He submits that the NCTE has now made the necessary decision, which limits the introduction of the ITEP to 50 institutions only, on a pilot basis.
8. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that the application filed by the NCTE is not maintainable. He contends that the NCTE seeks a direction in a disposed of writ petition which is virtually tantamount to overturning the judgment, as the application of the petitioner- institution and other similarly placed institutions would not be considered for the academic year 2022-23 at all. Mr. Kumar draws my attention to paragraph 11 of the application which reads as follows:-
"11. It is respectfully submitted that in case NCTE is required to process the ITEP applications which have been previously returned, then it would hinder/delay the processing of applications on a pilot basis for the new ITEP course in accordance with NEP 2020."
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the relief sought by the NCTE cannot be granted. Even without going into the maintainability of the application, Mr. Kumar is right in submitting that the endeavour of the NCTE appears to be entirely inconsistent with the judgment of this Court.
10. Mr. Singh emphasises that a policy decision has been made to commence the ITEP course with 50 institutions only, on a pilot basis. On the Court's query as to the methodology by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49 which the 50 institutions would be identified, Mr. Singh submits that fresh applications would be invited. He candidly states that the pending applications of the writ petitioners and other similarly placed institutions would not be considered, even if they meet the regulatory requirements of the notification dated 22.10.2021. Mr. Singh clarifies that these institutions would be entitled to re-apply under the notification to be published and their applications would be considered at par with any other applications received pursuant to the new notification. However, this is the very consequence which would have ensued if the writ petitions had been dismissed altogether. The institutions concerned would still have been at liberty to apply afresh pursuant to the new notification, and would have been considered at par with other institutions.
11. In the judgment dated 05.08.2021, this Court has not accepted this approach. The Court has noted that the applications were made by the writ petitioner in the year 2019 pursuant to an invitation of the NCTE in terms of an order of the Supreme Court. The applications were kept pending for more than two years, leading to a loss of two academic sessions. The NCTE was therefore directed to take a decision on the required infrastructure and regulatory regime, so that the petitioners' applications could be considered for the academic session 2022-23. Having regard to the period of time that may be necessary for processing of the applications, the NCTE was also directed to process the petitioners' applications in anticipation of its final policy decision and subject to compliance with any changes in the regulatory regime. The final decision as to whether the institutions were to be granted permission or not was left to the NCTE.
12. The application by the NCTE now, seeks to undo those directions in view of the subsequent policy decisions dated 22.10.2021 and 27.10.2021. As far as the amendment to the Regulations is concerned, the cap of 50 institutions is not contained therein. The Regulations lay down the infrastructure and regulatory requirements for the new course. It bears Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49 emphasis that neither the judgment of this Court dated 05.08.2021 nor the present order, compels the NCTE to recognise any course which falls short of the applicable regulatory regime. However, the NCTE cannot take a policy decision to permit a certain number of institutions, that too after a lapse of two and a half months from the judgment of this Court, and thereby disable itself from implementing the judgment.
13. The question may have been different if the pending applications were considered in terms of the judgment of this Court and assessed under the new regulatory regime. In such a circumstance, perhaps the NCTE could have chosen to offer recognition to a limited number of institutions selected objectively from amongst all pending and new applications, after assessment against the new Regulations. However, this is not what the NCTE seeks to do. It is, therefore, unnecessary to render any final finding on that issue, which is left open. ..."
5. In a batch of cases including CONT.CAS(C) 623/2021 dated 14.12.2021, this court had recorded as under:
"1. The court is informed that over 4,000 applications are pending with various Regional Committees. Over 133 contempt petitions have been listed today and there are many more pending in this court. Other writ petitions too have been preferred by the petitioner-institutions.
2. In the circumstances, it is best that the meetings of the WRC are held on a more regular basis than once a month so that the applications are taken up and disposed-off at the earliest.
3. Mr Shivam Singh, the learned SC for NCTE submits that instead of earlier monthly meetings, at least three meetings are held every month. This obviously is not sufficient. Therefore, the meetings will have to be held at least 10 times a month. Let four meetings be held in the next eight days. Let the meetings be convened by the Regional Director, WRC on 20.12.2021 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49 and 21.12.2021, 23.12.2021 and 24.12.2021.
4. It is hoped that in the next scheduled meeting(s), the application apropos all pending contempt petitions would be considered expeditiously, other matters pending before this court too shall be considered. Four more meetings shall be held in January, 2022.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that notices, as may be issued to the parties by the WRC, be also served through the counsel.
6. The decision taken/notices issued by the NCTE would be served through the mode preferred and/or prescribed by it. Additionally, the same shall also be served upon the learned counsel for the parties, through e-mode.
..."
6. On 23.12.2021 in CONT.CAS(C) 988/2021, the following order was passed:
"...
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel named above for the respondents.
4. Let a compliance affidavit be filed by the respondents before the next date.
5. Renotify on 17.01.2022.
6. In the interim, the Registry is directed to file a month-wise chart before the next date showing the number of writ petitions and contempt petitions filed against NCTE in the past two years. The court would note that ordinarily, many cases have been filed against the respondents in the instant petition i.e. Mr. Santosh Kumar Sarangi, Chairperson, NCTE and Mr. Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Regional Director, WRC. Registry shall also ascertain the number of cases filed against the aforesaid two persons/present respondents. ..."Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that should the respondents not comply with the said directions, there is likelihood of a deluge of approximately 3000 contempt petitions being filed, as has been noted in the aforesaid order of 05.08.2021.
8. Issue notice. The learned counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
9. Let R-1, Chairperson of NCTE, file an affidavit as to why the orders have not been complied with thus far and what measures have been put in place to ensure due compliance of all order referred to hereinabove and in various cases before this court.
10.Compliance affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date.
11.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that exemplary costs be imposed upon respondents for their non-compliance. This issue shall be considered on the next date.
12.List on 15.02.2022.
13.It is expected that all steps as may be expedient, will be taken by the respondents to duly process all applications in compliance of the aforesaid directions.
14.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J JANUARY 27, 2022 SS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:28.01.2022 20:36:49